# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 39 Fed. Reg. 42510 1974

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)
Fri Feb 21 17:07:24 2014

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance
of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from
uncorrected OCR text.RULES AND REGULATIONS

Title40-Protection ofEnvironment

CHAPTER I-ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

SUBCHAPTER C-AIR PROGRAMS [FRL 302-4]

_ PART 52-APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

Prevention ofSignificantAirQuality Deterioration

On May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10842), the Administrator oftheEnvironmental Protection Agency published initial alpprovals and disapprovals of State Implemen- tation Plans submitted pursuant to sec- tion 110 ofthe CleanAirAct,as amended in1970.

On November 9, 1972 (37 FR 23836), all State Implementation Plans were disapproved insofar as they failed to provide for the prevention of significant deterioratioi ofexisting air quality.This action was taken in response to a pre- liminary injunction issued by the District Court for the District of Columbia, which alsorequired the administrator to promulgate regulations as to any.state planwhich eitherpermits the significant deterioration of air quality in any portion of any state, or fails to take the

measures necessary to prevent such significant deterioration.

Accordingly, on July 16, 1973 (38 FR 18986), an initial notice of proposed rulemaking was published which set forth four alternative plans for prevent- ing significant deterioration, and which solicited widespread public involvement in all aspects of the significant deterioration issue. A series of public hearings

were heldandover 300writtencomments

were submitted in response to this pro- posal.The hearing records and thewritten comments are available for inspection at theEPA FreedomofInformation Office, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, D.C.

Due to the lack of precise direction either in the Clean Air Act or in the Court order,the initial proposals focused

on the conceptual basis for regulations. The comments received on the proposed regulations therefore tended primarily to discussconceptual issuessuch astheroles of federal and state/local governments, rather thandetailed comments regarding implementation of the regulations. Accordingly, on August 27, 1974 (39 FR 31000), the Administrator issued reproposedregulations inorder toproperly ex- plore all aspects of.thisissue andtofocus

more clearly onprocedural andtechnical issues.

The Administration has submitted for consideration an amendment to the Act which would eliminate the requirement for preventing significant deterioration of air quality. This amendment is pend- ing before the Congress. Although EPA does not endorse this amendment, EPA seeks fullpublic debate onthesignificant deterioration issue and in issuing these reglations does not intend to delay or influence consideration of this amendment. The regulations issued herein are necessary because the Court has ruled that the current Clean Air Act requires the Administrator to prevent signflcant deterioration, and thisrequirement must be met even though it is possible that Congress may provide additional guid-

ance and/or legislative changes in the future.

Theregulations proposed onAugust27, 1974, called for the establishment of "classes" of different allowable incrementalincreases intotal suspended particulates (TSP) andsulfurdioxide (SO,). Class I applied to areas in which prac- tically any change in air quality would beconsidered significant; ClassI applied
to areas in which deterioration normally accompanying moderate well-controlled growthwouldbe considered insignificant; and Class 3-Iapplied to those areas in which deterioration up to the national standards would be considered insignificant. Under the proposed regulation, all

areas ofthecountry wouldbe designated Class II initially, with provisions for allowing States to reclassify any area to accommodate the social, economic, and environmental needs and desires of the public.

The plan would be implemented through a preconstruction review of specified source categories to determine whether these sources would cause a violation of the appropriate increments. The new source review also included a provision requiring the use of best available control technology on sources cov- ered by the regulation. Finally, the pro- posalprovided procedures forpubliccom- ment on each application for permission
to construct-and for delegating the re- sponsibility for implementing the new

source review procedures to States or local governmental units.

DISCUSSION OFPUBLIC CO!=NTS
The August 27 proposal was criticized by environmental groups as being unre- sponsive to the District Court's order in that it permits the deterioration of air quality up to the national standards in Class MIregions. Although this result could also occur in Class I or Class f1 regions where the difference between existing air quality and the national standard is less than the prescribed air quality increment, all such comments focused on the provision for Class II

areas. Unless "significant deterioration" is defined as a percentage of the "unused" air resource, any air quality increment plan, regardless of how small the increment is, could allow deterioration up to thenational standard in some instances. As discussed in the preamble
to the proposals of July 16, 1973, and August 27, 1974, air quality monitoring is presently concentrated in heavily pol- luted areas, with only scattered monitoring in relatively clean areas. Vast numbers of additional monitors will be necessary to precisely define existing air quality, making a plan thatis dependent

on a knowledge of existing air quality virtually unworkable. Therefore, thefact that air quality could,in some instances, increase to the national standard, does not, in the Administrator's opinion, make the August 27 proposal inconsistentwiththeCourt'sruling. Additional comments involving Class III areas indicated that economic and social factors should have no bearing on the definition of significant deterioration. These comments stated that EPA
must consider only air quality factors and that a single nationwide definition of significant deterioration must be established. Such comments didnot take issue with Agency statements made on July 16, 1973, and August 27, 1074 that the definition of significant deterioration Is basically a subjective decision. None of the comments suggesting changes to the increments proposed by the Administrator, or proposing alternate plans, offered any justification for the numbers which were selected. Since the consideration of "air quality factors" alone essentially leads to an arbitrary definition of what Is "significant," this term only has meaning when the economic and social imnplications are analyzed and considered. Therefore, the Administrator believes that it is most important to recognize and consider these Implications, since the consideration of air quality factors alone provides

no basis for selecting one deterioration Increment overanother.

Even In the subjective terms that arc required when considering only the en- vironmental aspects, the contention that there must be a single definition of sig- nificant deterioration applicable nationwide doesnot appear to address the wide range of environmental needs which exist. Most of the comments Implicitly recognized that there Is a need to develop resources In presently clean areas of the country, and that significant deterioration regulations should not pre- clude all growth, but should ensure that growth occurs In an environmentally acceptable manner. However, there are

some areas, such as national parks, ,where any deterioration would probably beviewed as significant. A singlenationwide deterioration increment would not be able to accommodate these two situations.

Along these lines, comments were spe- cifically requested in the proposal as to whether the Class 11 increment should be doubled. Power companies generally supported such a change, while other
comments from the industrial sector Indicated that the increments were adequate for well-controlled growth. Power companies indicated that many now plants would be much larger than those which would be allowed in a Class IX

area (approximately 1000 megawatts), and that the Class I increment ought
to accommodate such development.None of the comments presented any reasons for permitting such development In a Class I rather thana Class In area, ex- cept that the initial designation of all

areas will be Class Ir. The Administrator continues to feel that a Class IXincrement should becompatible with moderate, well-controlled development In a nationwide context,.and thatlarge-scale development should be permitted only in conjunction .with a conscious decision

to redesignate the 

### area as Class 

### I,

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 235-THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1974 

### 42510

### RULES AND REGULATIONS

Many comments also criticized tle omission of carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), hydrocarbons (HC), and photochemical oxidants (Ox) from the regulations. As indicated on July 16, 1973, and August 27, 1974, and in previous actions involving indirect-source review (38 FR 29893 at '29894, 39 FR 7270 at 7272, and 39 FR 25292 at 25295), existing ana- lytical procedures are not adequate to determine the impact of individual

sources on air quality concentrations of reactive pollutants (NOx and HC/Ox). The only presently available technique for relating emissions to air quality for these pollutants is the areawide propor- tionalmodel used for demonstrating the adequacy of control strategies. The proportional model requires that measured air quality data be available; however,

as indicated above, such data are very limited in presently clean areas (even

more so than for TSP and SO). In con- trast, the air quality concentration of stablepollutants can reasonably be estimated using a diffusion model- and therefore measured air quality data are not necessary, to determine the incremental air quality impact of an individual source. In addition, since the proportional model assumes that air quality is proportional to emissions, the key to analyzing the impact of an individual

source focuses on the definition ofbaseline emissions. If the source would be located in a very clean area with virtually no baseline emissions, then the predicted air quality incFease would be
very large (when in fact it probably would not). If the source would be located in a large metropolitan area and the baseline emissions are those of the entire metropolitan area, then the pre- -dicted impact of a single additional

source would be very small. Therefore, the proportional model is adequate for control strategy development in urban

areas where measured air quality data

are available and the aggregate impact of controlling many sources is being analyzed. However, it is inappropriate for analyzing the incremental impact of individualnewsoukees.

At this time, the only practical ap- proachfor dealing withthese pollutants
appears to be to minimi emissions as much as possible.TheFederal MotorVehicle Control Program accomplishes this forindividual motorvehicles. Newsource performance standards (NSPS) have already -beenestablished under Part 60 of this chapterformany ofthesource categories subject to the regulation. Where practicable, emission limitations for CO, NOx, and HC have been promulgated for those sources presently subject to Part 60. Although some of the source categories are not yet included in Part 60, either"(1) those that are notcovered

are not significant emitters of CO,NOx,

or HC, or (2) control technology for these pollutants is unavailable or an emission limitation is impractical (e.g. HCemissions from coke ovens).

One additional step which could be taken to minimize emission of CO,NOx, and HC appears to be in the area of minimizing vehicle mlles' of travel (VMT). Plans for reducing VMT and minimizing future V"T growth have been developed as part ofthe Transpor- 

### tation Control Plans (TCP) promul- gated elsewhere in this chapter. Since the TCP's focus on major metropolitan

areas, the flexibility available in design- ing these plans would be more limited when appliedtorural andoutlyingareas. It is clear, however, that comprehensive transportation planning offers an appropirate mechanism for minimizing VMT growthin suchareas.It Isnotclear, however, how EPA might become involved in comprehensive transportation planning throughout the country under these regulations, although States may wish toconsider such an approach when developing their own plans to prevent significant deterioration. States of

course, are notprecluded from including other more comprehensive measures for dealing with HC, CO, and NOx in their

ownplans.

Some difflcult additional questions arise as to how this concept of VMT minimization could beincorporated into these significant deterioration regulations. Would the addition of a VT increment, similar to the air quality Increment approach used in these reglations, be appropriate? Would a new

source review ofspecific indirect sources be practical, or should the review apply
to larger scale projects such as a new town or a large new development? The Administrator solicits additional com- ments on thisissue and may modify the regulation at a later date if workable procedures in thisarea canbe developed.

The August 27proposal specified that all areas of the country,including those

areas above the national standards, would be subject to the significant deterioration regulations, even though the District Court order only required' the prevention of significant deterioration in

areaspresentlybelowthenational standards. This was done because it was not possible to specify in these regulations all areas of the country which exceed the national ambient air quality standards.In addition,therewouldbenoprac- tical impact of these significant deterioration regulations in areas above the standards, since emissions in such areas

are being reduced under the state implementation plans, while these regulations provide for limited allowable In-

creasesin emissions.

Nonetheless, there were a number of
comments requesting that these regula- tions specifically exempt all areas pres- ently above the national standards. The regulations promulgated below provide for this exemption only with respect to the area classification requirements. The preconstruction review is still applicable in all areas of the country, in order to

ensure thatnew sources be examined for their impact in presently clean areas which may be adjacent toareas that are above the national standards. In addition, the requirements for applying best available control technology arealso applicable to all sources subject to review in order to minimize the deterioration 

### caused by individual sources. This requirement is particularly important 

### where a source in one State would use up a significantportion ofthe-airquality increment in aneighboring State.

Theexemption ofareas fromthe classiflcationrequirements willbe done ona county basis (or functionally equivalent area) and willbebased on a determination by the State thatthe air quality In the county is pervasively above the na- tional standard. No attempt has been made to define these counties in these regulations. Instead, States must notify the Administrator by June 1, 1975, of those areas which are exempt from the classification requirements.

There were a number ofcomments re- questing clarification ofthe relationship ofthese regulations to other portions of the existing implementation plans, particularly the air quality maintenance plans (AQMP's) to be submitted by 

### June, 1975. An air quality maintenance

area CAQ,A) is an area designated by the Administrator that may have the potential for exceeding any national standard within the next 10-yearperiod

as a consequence of current air quality and/or the projected growth rate ofthe

area. The State are required to submit

an analysis oftheimpact on air quality ofprojected growth in each designated potential problem area. Where mainte-

nance problems are Identified by this analysis, the states must also submit plans containing measures to ensure maintenance ofnational standards during the ensuing 10-year period. AQMA's havebeenproposedforspecificpollutants and final designations will bepublished 

### shortly. Where anAQUA hasbeen designated because ofprojected problemsin maintaining the NAAQS foreither TSP

or SO,, the significant deterioration increment is applicable only to those portions of the AQUA which are cleaner than either standard. By design AQUA boundaries have been designated to Include substantial areas which are relatively clean. This has been done to In-

sure that the planning area corresponds
to the entire area where projected new growth inemissions islikelyto occurand where regional plannin. forpublicserv- Ices,housing and employment isfocused.

Although there seemedto be a general assumptionthatAQA's shouldbe designated as Cla fI, there areseveral situations where a Statemay wish to leave the clean air portions of an AQMA as Class I or even to redesignate the area to a ClassI. This wouldlimit peripheral growth so as to complement the goals of the AQMP and in this context, the sig- nificant deterioration would actually be

a mechanism forpartially implementing the AQMP. In addition, there are several clean airareaswhichhavebeenproposed

asAQMW.'s dueto anticipatedlarge-scale development of natural resources. A Class I or Class II designation for such

areas wouldprobably eliminatethe need for an AQIP for TSP or SO., since the air qualityconstraint wouldbethe Class Ior ClassIIincrement.Therefore, a "dedesignation" of the AQMA for TSP or

FEDEMILL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 235-71hUSJlDAY, DCFtEER 5, 1974 

### 4-9511

### RULES AND REGULATIONS

SO, may be appropriate. In any case, the Administrator recommends thatanyproposed significant deterioration redesignation have boundaries consistent with AQMA boundariestofacilitate the development of the AQMA plan.

AClass I designation does not neces- sarily mean that an AQMP would be re- quired. For example, a clean air area might be designated Class I on the basis of a marginal anticipated deterioration in air quality which exceeds the Class II increments. However, the anticipated resulting air quality would still be well below the national standards. If little additional development were anticipated over the subsequent 10-year period so as to threaten the national standards, no AQMP would be required,_

Furthermore,it is important to recognize,that area classifications do notnecessarily imply current air quality or current land use patterns. Instead, classifications should reflect the desired degree of change from current levels and patterns.

A number of public comments indicated concern that these regulations would create a duplication ofnew source review procedures, which would require

a source owner to apply toseveral different governmental agencies before -he could commence construdtion.

Wherethe State assumesresponsibility for carrying out the new source review procedure under these regulations, most of the concerns expressed above should beeliminated.Procedurally andadministratively, thesignificant deterioration re- view is virtuall identical to existing

new source review procedures included in the implementation plan and, in fact, application could probably be made on the same forms. No additional sources would be covered by the significant deterioration review. The only difference between the two newsource reviews is in the tests which must be met before approval will be granted. Instead of meeting only the emission limitations which

are part of the applicable plan, sources covered by the significant deterioration 

### review must also meet an emission limitation which is consistent with the application of best available control technology. The most restrictive emission limitation supersedes all others. In 

### acdition to not causing a violation of any national standard, sources covered by the significant deterioration review must notcause an applicable air quality increment to -be exceeded. Technically, the calculations needed to determine if these additional tests will be met are very similar to thosealready being done. Therefore, where a State administers these regulations, integration with the existing plan should be'relatively easy, resulting in only minor additional resource demands. If Statesdonotassume responsibility for implementing these regulations, EPA, through its Regional Offices, will carry out the new source review asrequired bythe Act. Sincethis may cause duplication of effort on the part of EPA and the States, as well as additional requirements for source owners, the Administrator stronglyurges States to accept delegation of these regulations or to develop their own regulations pursuant to the guidance to be issued shortly pursuant to Part 51 of thischapter.

In response to public comments, the Administrator is considering the addition of other source categories, such as asphalt concrete plants and ferro-alloy plants, to these regulations. One possibility is to add those sources for which

new source performance standards for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide have been proposed or promulgated un- der Part 60 of this chapter. A proposal
to add other source categories will be issuedshortly.

One comment indicated confusion as to what functions the Administrator intended to delegate to States under these regulations. The confusion apparently related tothe definition of "Administrator" under paragraph (b)(3) as including the Administrator's "designated representative." Although the term "Administrator" is used in paragraph (c), relating to the approval of State re- designation, the Administrator does not intend to designate to a representative outside the Agency the review and approval functions- under this paragraph. As indicated in paragraph (f), the only functions which will be delegated to States willbe the preconstruction review under paragraphs (d)and (e).

A question was raised as to whether

an area could have one classification for SO and another for TSP. Different classifications for SO2 and TSP may make sensein certain situations, and the Administrator does not intend to precludethis option.

Several public comments requested that the technical procedures for determining the air quality impact of a new

source be specified by EPA. The techniques the Agencyintends touse in most

cases are set forthin "Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis," Vols. 10 and 12. Volume 10, "Reviewing New Stationary Sources," pertains totheair qualityimpact ofindividual sources, while Vol. 12, "Applying Atmospheric Simulation Models to Air Quality Maintenance Areas," willbeused
to determine the impact of other growth and development in the area affected by the source. These documents are availablefor inspection atEPA's Regional Offices and the EPAFreedom of InformationCenter, 401M Street,SW., Washington, D.C. 20460, and will be available shortly for general distribution through the National Technical Information Service, 5258 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151. The Administrator,

orStates which willbe implementing the preconstruction review as EPA's agent, is not required to use the techniques in these documents if other techniques are

more appropriate in certain circumstances.

There was considerable divergence of opinion over the initial classification of all areas. Industrial groups generally supported an initial designation ofClass I so as to minimize disruption of projectsscheduled to commence construction inthenearfuture. Environmental groups supported an Initial designation of Class I, fearing that a Class IIor III designation would permit air quality deterioration of some clean areas before States could act to redesignate areas to amore restrictive classification. The Administrator continues to feel that an Initial Class II designation represents the most reasonable compromise between these widely differing positions. Also, since the regulations apply only to sources which

commence construction after June 1, 1975, the Administrator feels that this deferral should reduce disruption to the Industrial sector while permitting States sufficient time to consider reclassifying
any area either to Class I or I before requests for approval must be acted
upon.

There were several questions raised concerning the appropriate size of an

area which should be considered for re- designation. Calculations havq shown that.because of the small air quality increments specified for Class I areas, these levels can be violated by a source located many miles inside an adjacent Class Tror 311 area.For example, apower plant which just meets the Class IXincrement for SO- could under some con- ditions violate the Class I increment for SO 60 or more miles away. Under the regulations promulgated below, a source could not be allowed to construct if it would violate an air quality increment either in the area where the source is to be located or in any neighboring area in the State. Therefore, wherever a Class I

area adjoins a Class II or M area, the potential growth restrictions, especially for power plant development, extends well beyond the Class I boundaries into the adjacent areas. A similar situation exists, to a greater or lesser degree, wherever areas ofdifferent classification adjoin each other. Therefore, the area with the less restrictive classification should include an additional area at the periphery where It is clearly recognized that development will be somewhat re- stricted due to the adjacent "cleaner"

area. As a result, a Class I redesignation couldbefairly limited in size, yet theadjoining Class II or Class III areas would need to cover a substantial area in order
to fully utilize the Class II or III increment.Again, It should be clear that the Class II or MI increment could only be fully utilized toward the center of the

area and thatat theperiphery, allowable deterioration will be dictated by the adjoining ClassI arearather than the Clatz II or IIIincrement.

Thedistance alarge source wouldneed
tobe located away from a Class I boundary Is more dependent on the meteorological conditions in the area rather than the size of the source. Where very long pollutant travel times from the

source to the receptor are involved, the assumptions concerning the persistence ofwind directionand atmospheric stability are critical.At some point,it can be assumed that areceptor will be virtually

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 235-7THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1974 

### 42512RULES AND REGULATIONS

unaffected by a source, regardless of the

source strength, since the critical meteorological conditions would not be expected .topersist long enough tomove the pollutants from source to receptor for any significant period of time. This distanceis, ofcourse, dependent onlocal meteorological conditions,-but for most

areasthemaximum distance wouldbe60 to 100 miles.

CHUINGES TO THE REGULATIONS 1. Deftnitionof Hodified Source.The term "expanded source" was used in the proposal inplace of the more commonly used term "modified source" in order to specifically exclude from the precon- struction review sources which increase emissions solely due to switching from a low sulfurtoa highersulfurcontentfuel. The proposed definition of expanded

source was related to whether a source increase'd emissions through a "major capital expenditure." This phrase was criticized by many as being too vague. 

### Therefore, the general term "modified source" has been reinstated, along with

a specific exemption forfuel conversion, which exemptionisapplicable onlytothe significant deterioration review proce- dures.Thegeneral definition ofmodified

source in Part 52 is changed slightly to bemore specificandtobe consistent with the definition used in Part 60. Changes to the definition of modification in Part 60wereproposed onOctober 15, 1974 (39 FA 36946) and comments on this pro- posal are presently being analyzed. It is the Administrator's intentto change the definition ofmodification under Part 52 to be consistent with the final definition of-thistermunder Part 60.

These changesare notintendedtomodify the applicability of either the pro- posed significant deterioration regula- tions or other new source review pro- cedures promulgated elsewhere in Part 52.

2. Deftnitionofbest availablecontrol technology.Since this termmaybe used elsewhere in Part 52 inthefuture, ithas been defined in the general definitions section 6fPart 52. The definitionis con- sistent -withthe wordingused in the August 27proposal. It should be noted that

new source performance standards (NSPS) may only apply to certain affected facilities within a large source For example, only basic oxygen process furnaces in a steel mill are presently covered by NSPS, while blast furnaces, scarfing operations and other significant

sourceswithin themill are notpresently covered. BACT must be determined for these facilities on a case-by-case basis until such time as NSPS are issued for these other facilities.

3. Deftnition of baseline air quality concentration. The proposal intended to establish-the baseline air quality as that air quality existing as of the effective date of regulation, adjusted to include air resourcecommitments resulting from approval of other air pollution sources pursuant to existing new source review procedures in theplan. The definition of baseline air quality has been clarified to reflect this intent and the calculation hasbeen simplified by specifying theuse of 1974 air qqallty datarather than 1973 data. No substantive change is intended by this revision.

4. Conditions for applying forredcslg- nationof areas.In order that the Administrator have an adequate basis for determining whether an application to redesignate an area should be approved

or disapproved, a provision has been added toparagraph (c) (3) (11) torequire that thenecessary Information be a part of the hearing record on the proposed designation. Specifically, thehearingrec- ord must show that the social, environmental and economic effects ofthepro- posed redesignationhave been evaluated for the area beingreclassified as well as for adjacent areas and thatregional and national interests have been considered. The Administrator will provide addLtional guidance to assist States in developing their redesignatlon proposals and analyzing the impact of such redesignatlons. 5. Statereclassificaton ofFederaland IndianLands.Various public comments indicate that Federal lands should ba subject to State jurisdiction. EPA did not intend to preclude State redesigna- tions provided that the Federal Land Manager can elect to keep the air qual- ity overFederal lands in a more pristine condition than the State might designate. Therefore, the regulations have been revised to subjectFederal lands to State redeslgnatlons but reserve to the Federal Land Manger the authority to subject such lands to a more stringent designation. This approach Is consistent with section 118 ofthe CleanAirAct (42 U.S.C. 1857f) which requires that Federal agencies having Jurisdiction over any property or facility meet substantive State air pollution control standards andlimitations. There Isnothingin the Clean Air Act orthe legislative history of that Actthat Indicates the Congress intended to preclude the Federal Government from meetingmore restrictive standards than are Imposed by the States. This provision also ensures that national forests and parks can be pro- tected by the Federal Government from deterioration ofair quality.Thedifferent treatment accorded lands of exclusive Federaljurisdictionhas been eliminated since the revised regulations mae It clear that the Federal Government can protect air quality overallFederal lands. In accordance with Executive Order 11752, these regulations do not require Federalfacilities to complywith State or local administrative procedures withre- spect to pollution abatement and con- trol. Review of new sources on Federal lands isreserved toEPA, except as State review is permitted by a Federal Land Manager with respect to activities con- ducted under Federal leases.

The State of New Mexico commented that the proposed regulations appeared to take authority away from the States to regulate air pollution over Indian lands. These regulations were not intended to alter the present legal relationships betweenthe States andIndian Reservations within the States.Asthese relationships vary from State to State, EPA has not attempted to define such relationships but has modified the pro- posed regulations to clarify- that thee is no intentto alter theze relationships. Where States have not assumed juris- diction over Indian lands, the reguila- tions provide that the Indian govern- ing body may propose redesignations to the Admini'trator. Boundary problems between Indian and State lands are dealt with in the same way thatboundary problems between two States are 

### dealt with, as discussed below. This is consiostent with the independent status of Indian lands not subject to State laws.

6. Publiccomment onproposedredesIgnations.In order to permit the pub- lie an opportunity to comment on whether a proposed redesignatlon should be approved or disapproved, the Administrator will publish all proposed redesignatlons in the 

### Fem= RGsER

as proposed ruleraking and provide a least 30 days for submission of public
comments.

7. Preconstructionreview and BACT in Class IIIareas.Several public com- ments criticized the proposed rezula

### tions for exempting sources in Class

## M

areas from preconstruction review. It

was pointed out that there would beno procedure to prevent construction of a
source in a Class II area which would violate an increment in an adjacent Class I or If area. Therefore, the regu- lations promulgated below require that

new sources, wherever they are located, must be reviewed to determine the impact on air quality In adjacent regions.

In order to minimize the deterioration caused by Jndivtdual sources, the proposal has beenmodified tomake the BACT requirements applicable wher-

ever the source is located, not just in Class I orIIareas.Sincea sourcelocated
many miles away from a Class I area could easily use up the entire Class I increment,

- as discussed below the necessity to minimize emissions as much as possible in all areas is parti- cularlyImportant.

8. Determination of allowable air quality increment. The provisionis of paragraph (d)(2) (1) have been modified to be more specific and to specify that reduction of emissions from existing sources which contributed to the baseline air quality concentration should be accounted forin determining theun- used portion ofthe allowed air quality increment.

9. EPA review of stateredesignations. The proposed regulations did not adequately cover problems created when a State orIndian Governing Body wishes
to designate one or more ofits areas in such a way that it will have a negative 

### Impact on other States orIndianReservations. These regulations provide that

a State orIndian GoverningBody must take into account the effect ofproposed redeslgnations on other States, Indian Reservations, and regional and national

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 235-THURSDAY, DECEEtiR 5, 1974 42513

### 42514

interests. Where no Stateor IndianGoverning Body pratests the redesignation of another State or Indian Reservation, the Administrator will only review the redesignation to determine whether it is arbitrary andcapricious. However, where

a State or Indian Governing Body protests a redesignation to the State pro- posing the redesignation and to the Administrator, the Administrator will take

an expanded role of review in which he will balance the competing interests involved.

10.Specificationo1 emissionlimitation. In order to ensure that the requirement for applying BACT is properly imple- mented, the provisions ofparagraph (d) (2) ii) havebeenmodified torequire that

an emission limitation be established as
a condition to approval. This places the emphasis on emissions rather than the presence of anyparticular control equipment. This change also makes theBACT requirement for sources not covered by NSPS more consistent with the NSPS requirements. However, if the Administrator determines that technological or economic limitations on the application of measurement methodology to a-par- icular class of sources would make the imposition of an emission standard infeasible, he may instead prescribe a design or equipment standard requiring the application of best available control technology. Such standard shall to the degreepossible setforth the emissionre- ductions achievable by implementation of such design or equipment, and shall provide for compliance by means which achieve equivalent results.

11 Responsibilityfor performing air quality impact analysis. A number of public comments suggested that the re- viewing agency analyze the air quality impact of additional growth that has occurred In the vicinity of the proposed

source sincethereviewing agencyismore likely to have the necessary data which Is needed. The Administrator has con- cludedthatit wouldbemore appropriate for the reviewing agency to perform the air quality impact analysis based on information submitted by the applicant. This change will eliminate the uncer- tainty which was expressed concerning the requirement that the applicant an- alyze the air quality impact of general growth anddevelopment "in the area affected by the proposed source," sincethe reviewing agency will define this area and perform the calculations required. Also the provisions of paragraph (d) (3) do not require the applicant to submit growth datawitheach application.However, the reviewing agency may request such data from the applicant in cases where it does not have the necessary information and will specify the area over which such information isrequired.

12. Procedures forpublicparticipation. The procedures specified in paragraph (e) for publiccomment onanapplication to construct have been modified to be consistent withtheprocedures contained in EPA's regulations for indirect source review (39 FR 25292). The changes allow the reviewing agency to require adRULES AND REGULATIONS

ditional information, where necessary, and permit the applicant to respond to public comments involving his applica- tionto construct.

13. Sourcessubject to review.As pro- posed on August 27, several of the 19

source categories subject to the precon- structionreview appeared to berestricted to an individual process (e.g. Kraft pulp nifl recovery furnaces) rather than all emission points on the premises. The wording has been. changed to be con- sistent with the listing of the other

source categories andto make clear that all emission points associated with a stationary source must be considered in determining whether the source will violate an applicable air quality increment. This change allows sintering plants to be dropped from the list, since sintering operations will be covered un- der the primary metals industries which

are subject to reviewunder theseregula- tions.

A detailed explanation of the technical andpolicyconsiderations which form the basis for these regulations is being prepared. Upon completion, the Administrator will publish a notice in the

FEDERAL REGISTER announcing the availability of this information for public inspection.

These regulations will be effective January 6, 1975 and will be applicable to

sources commencing construction on or afterJune 1,1975.

(Secs. 110(c) and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act as amended [42 U.S.C. 1857 c-5(c) and 1857 g(a) ])

Dated: November 27, 1974.,

RUSSELL E. TIRAr, Administrator. Subpart A, Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, is amended asfollows:

1. In §52.01, paragraph (d) is- re- vised and paragraph (f)is added. As amended §52.01 reads as follows: § 52.01 Definitions.

(d) The phrases "modification" or "modified source" mean any physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, a stationary source which increases the emissionrate of anypollutant for which a national standard hasbeen promulgated under Part 50 of this chapter orwhich results in the emission of any such pollutant not previously emitted, except that: (1) Routine maintenance, repair, and replacement shall not be considered a physicalchange, and (2) The following shall not be con- sidered a change in the method of op- eration: (I) An increase in the production rate, if such increase -does not exceedthe operating design capacity of the"

source;

(ii) An increase in the hours of oper- ation;

(lii) Use of an alternative fuel orraw material, ifprior to the effective date of

a paragraph in this Part which Imposes conditions on or limits modifications, the source is designed to accom- modate such alternative use.

Wf)The term "best available control technology," as applied to any affected facilitysubject to Part60 ofthis chapter,

means any emission control device or technique which Is capable of limiting emissions to the levels proposed or pro- mulgated pursuant to Part 60 of this chapter.Where no standard ofperform-

ance has been proposed or promulgated for a source or portion thereof under Part 60,best available control technology shall be determined on a case-by-caso basis considering the following: (1) The process, fuels, and raw material available and to be employed in the facilityInvolved, (2) Theengineering aspects ofthe ap- plicationofvarious typesof controltechniques which have been adequately demonstrated,

(3) Process and fuel changes, (4) The respective costs of the appll- cation of all such control techniques, process changes, alternative fuels, etc., (5) Any applicable State and local emission limitations, and (6) Locational and siting considerations.

2. Section 52.21 Isrevised by designat. ing the first paragraph (a) and adding paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), and () to read asfollows: 

### §52.21 Significant deterioration of atl quality. -(a) Plan disapproval.Subsequent to May 31, 1972,theAdministrator reviewed Stateimplementation plans todetermine whether ornot the plans permit or pre- ventsignificant deterioration ofair qual- ityinany portion ofany State where the existing air quality is better than one or more of the secondary standards. The review indicates that State plans gener- ally do not contain regulations or pro- cedures specifically addressed to this problem. Accordingly, all Stateplans are disapproved to the extent that such plans lack procedures or regulations for preventing significant deterioration of air quality In portions of States where air quality Is better than the secondary standards. The disapproval applies to all States listed in SubpartsB through DDD of thispart.Nothing in this section shall invalidate or otherwise affect the obliga- tions ofStates, emission sources,or other persons with respect to all portions of plans approved or promulgated under thispart. (b) Definitions.For purposes of this section: (1) The phrase "baseline air quality concentration" refers to both sulfur dioxide and particulate matter and means the sum of ambient concentration levels existing during 1974and those additional concentrations estimated to result from

sources granted approval (pursuant to approved new source review procedures in the plan) for construction or modification but not yet operating prior to

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 235-THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1974RULES AND REGULATIONS

January 1, 1975. These concentrations shall be established for all time periods covered by theincrements set forth un- der paragraph (c) (2) (i) of this section, and may be measured or estimated. In the case of the maximum three-hour and twenty-four-hour concentrations, only the second highestr concentrations shouldbeconsidered.

(2) Thephrase "Administrator" means the Administrator ofthe Environmental Protection Agency or his designated rep- -resentative. (3) The phrase "Federal LandManager" means the head, or his designated representative,-of any Department or Agency oftheFederal Government which administers federally-owned land, including public domainlands. (4) The phrase "Indian Reseriation '

means any federally-recognized reserva- tion established by Treaty, Agreement, Executive Order, orAct ofCongress. (5) The phrase "Indian Governing Body" means the governing body of any tribe, band, or group ofIndians subject
to the jurisdiction of the United States and recognized by the United States as possessingpowerofself-government. (6) "Construction" means fabrication, erection, or installation of an affected facility. (7) "Commenced" means thatan own-

eror operator hasundertaken a continu-

ousprogram ofconstruction ormodification orthatanowner oroperator has en- tered into a binding agreement or con-

. tractual obligation to undertake and

complete, within a reasonable time, a continuous program of construction or modification. (c) Areadesignationanddeterioration increment.(1) Thisparagraph applies to all States listed in Subpart B through DDD ofthispart, alllands ownedby the Federal Government, and IndianReservations, except those counties or other functionally equivalent areas that per- vasively exceed any national ambient air quality standards for sulfur oxides or total suspended particulates and then only with respect to such pollutants. States shallnotify theAdministrator by June 1, 1975, of those areas -whichare above the national air quality standards and therefore are exempt from the re- quirements ofthis paragraph. (2) i) For purpose of this paragraph,

areas designated as Class I or Class'II shallbelimitedtothrfollowing increases in pollutant concentrations over the baseline hir quality concentration:

Area demigtiow

Polutant Clas I Clan II M) (gm)

Particulatematter. Annualgeometric mean_ 5 10 22hr-inWximmn_._

-- 10 s0 Sulfur-doxide: AnnnarthmeUc ean... 2 15 24-hrmsAimnm..--

. 5 100

- 25 700

(ii) For purposes of this paragraph,

areas designated as Class III shall be limited to concentrations ofparticulate matter and sulfur dioxide no greater than the national ambient air quality standards.

(3) i) All areas aredesIgnated Class II

as of the effective date ofthisparagraph. Redesignation may be proposed by the respective States, Federal Land Managers, orIndian GoverningBodies, asprovided below, subject to approval by the Administrator. (Cl)The State may submit to theAdministrator a proposal to redesignate

areas of the State Class I, Class II, or Class III,provided that: (a) Atleast one public hearingisheld in ornear thearea affected andthispub- lic hearing is held in accordance with procedures established in §51.4 of this chapter, and C) Other States which may be affected bythe proposed redesignation are notified atleast 30 dayspriorto thepublic hearing, and (c) A discussion ofthereasons for the proposed redesignatton is available for public inspection at least 30 days prior
tothehearing andthenoticeannouncing the hearing contains appropriate notification of the availability ofsuch discussion, and (d) The proposed redesignation is based on the record ofthe State'shearing,which must reflect the basis for the proposed redesignation, including con- sideration of (I) growth anticipated in the area, (2) the social, environmental, and economic effects of such redesignation upon the area being proposed for redesignation and upon other areas and States, and (3) anyimpacts of suchpro- posedredesignation uponregional orna- tionalinterests.

(ii) Except asprovided Insubdivision (iv) of this subparagraph, a State in which lands owned by the Federal Government are located may submit to the Administrator aproposal to redesignate suchlands Class I, Class Ir or Class III in accordance withsubdivision (i) ofthe subparagraphprovided that: (a) 'The redesignation Is consistent with adjacent Stateand privatelyowned land, and C) Such redesignation is proposed after consultationwith theFederal Land Manager. (iv) Notwithstanding subdivision (IMI) of this subparagraph, the Federal Land manager may submit to theAdministrator a proposal to redesignate any Federal lands to a more restrictive designationthan would otherwise be applicable provided that: (a) The Federal Land Manager follows procedures equivalent to those re- quired ofStatesunderparagraph (c) (3) (ii) and,

(b) Such redesignation Is proposed .after consultation with the State(s) in which the Federal Land is located or which border theFederal land. (v) Nothingin this sectionIsintended
to convey authority to the States over Indian Reservations where States have
not assumed such authority under other laws nor is it ntended to deny Jursdiction which States have assumed under 42515

other laws. Where a State hai not as- sumed Jurisdiction over an Indian Reservationthe appropriate Indian Governing Bodymaysubmitto theAdministrator aproposal toredesignate areas Class I, Class II, or Class 11, provided that: (a) The Indian Governing Body follows procedures equivalent to those re- quired of States under paragraph (c) (3) (ii) and, (b) Such redesignation is proposed after consultation with the State(s) in which the Indian Reservation is located

or which border the Indian Reservation and, for those lands held in trust,with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. vi) The Administrator shall approve, within 90 days, any redesignation proposed pursuant to this subparagraph as follows:

(a) Any redezignatlon proposed pursuantto subdivisions (ii) and (i1) ofthis subparagraph shall be approved unless the Administrator determines (1) that therequirements ofsubdivisions (11) and (Li) of this subparagraphhave notbeen complied Mth, (2) that the state has arbitrarily and capriciously disregarded relevant considerations set forthin subParagraph (3) (HI) (d) ofthis paragraph, (3) that the State has not requested delegation of responsibility for carrying
out the new source review requirements ofparagraphs (d) and (e) of this sec- tion. b) Any redesignation Proposed pursuanttosubdivision (iv) ofthissubparagraph shall be approved unless he determines (1) that the requirements of subdivision Civ) of this subparagraph havenotbeen compliedwith, or (2) that the Federal Land Manager has arbitrarily andcapriciously disrezardedrelevant cbnslderations setforthinsubpara- graph (3) (Hl) (d) ofthis paragraph. (c) Any redesignation submitted pursuant to subdivision (v) ofthissubpara- graph shallbe approved unless he determines (1) that the requirements of subdivision (v) of this subparagraph havenot beencomplied with,or (2) that the Indian Governing Body hs arbltrarily and capriciously disregarded relevant considerations set forthin subparagraph (3) (Hi) (d) ofthis paragraph. (d) Any redesignation proposed pursuant to this paragraph shall be ap- proved only afterthe Administrator has solicited written comments from affected Federal agencies dudIndian GoverningBodies andfromthepubliconthe proposal (e) Any proposed redesignation protested to the proposing State, Indian Governing Body, or Federal LandMan%., agerandtotheAdminitratorbyanother State or Indian Governing Bodybecause ofthe effects uponsuchprotestingState

orIndian Reservation shallbe approved by the Administrator only if he determines that in hisjudgment the redesig- nation appropriately balances considerations of growth anticipated in the

area proposed to be redesignated; the social, environmental and economic effects of such redesignation upon the

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 235-THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1974

### 42516

area being redesignated and upon other

areas and States; and any impacts upon regional or national interests. (vii) If the Administrator disapproves any proposed area designation under thissubparagraph, the State,Federal Land Manager orIndianGoverning Body, as appropriate, may resubmit the proposal after correcting thedeficiencies noted by the Administrator or reconsidering any area designation determined by theAdministrator tobe arbitrary and capricious. (d) Review o1 new sources. (1) This paragraph applies to any new or modifiedstationary source of atype identified below which will be located in any State listed In SubpartB through DDD ofthis part, which source has -notcommenced construction or expansion prior to June 1,1975. A source which is modified, but does not increase the amount of a pollutant other than sulfur oxides or particulate matter, or is modified to utilize an alternative fuel, or higher sulfur content fuel shall not be subject to this paragraph. (I) Fossil-Fuel Steam Electric Plants of more than 1000 million B.T.U. per hour heat input. (i) Coal Cleaning Plants, (iII) KraftPulpMills. (iv) Portland Cement Plants. (v) Primary Zinc Smelters. (vi) Iron andSteelMills. (vii) Primary Aluminum Ore Reduction Plants. (viii) Primary Copper Smelters. (ix) Municipal Incinerators.capable of charging more than 250 tons of refuse
per 24hour day. (x) Sulfuric Acid Plants. (xi) PetroleumRefineries. (xii) LimePlants. (xii) Phosphate Rock Processing Plants. (xiv) By-Product Coke OvenBatteries. (xv) Sulfur Recovery Plants. (xvi) Carbon Black Plants (furnace process). (xvii) Primary Lead Smelters. (xviii) Fuel Conversion Plants. (2) No owner or operator shall com-

mence construction or modification of a

source subject to this paragraph unless the Administrator determines that, on the basis of" information submitted pursuant to subparagraph (3) of this paragraph: (I) The effect on air quality concen- tration of the source or modified source, in conjunction with theeffects ofgrowth and reduction in emissions- after January 1, 1975, of other sources in the area affected by the proposed source, will not violate the air quality increments applicable in the area where the source will be located northe air qualityincrements applicable in any other areas. The analysis of emissions growth and reduction
after January 1, 1975, or other sources in the areas affected by the proposed

source shall include allnewand modified

sources granted approval to construct pursuant to this paragraph; reduction
Inemissions fromexisting sources which
contributed to the baseline air quality; 

### RULES AND REGULATIONS

and general commercial, residential, industrial, and other sources of emissions growth not included in the definition of baseline air quality which has occurred since January 1,1975.

(ii) The new or modified source will
meet an emission limit, to be specified by the Administrator as a condition to approval, which represents that level of emission reduction which would be achieved bythe application ofbestavailable control technology, as defined in §52.01(f), for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide. If the Administrator determines that technological or economic limitations on the application of measurement methodology to a particular class of sources would make the imposi- tion of an emission standard Infeasible, he may instead prescribe a design or equipment standard requiring the ap- plication ofbest available control technology.Suchstandard shall tothe degree possiblesetforththe emissionreductions achievable by implementation of such design or equipment, and shall provide for compliance by means which achieve equivalent results.

(iii) With respect to modified
sources, the requirements of subparagraph (2)(i) of this paragraph shall be applicable only to the facility or facilities from which emissions are Increased.

(3) Inmaking the determinations required by subparagraph (2) of this paragraph, the Administrator shall, as
aminimum, require the owner or operator of the source subject to this para- graph to submit: site information; plans, description, specifications, and drawings showing the design of the
source; information necessary to determine the impact that the construction

or modification will have on sulfur dioxide and particulate matter air quality levels; and any other information necessary to determine that best available control technology will be ap- plied. Upon request of the Administrator,the owner or operator ofthe source shall also provide information on the nature andextent ofgeneralcommercial, residential, industrial, and other growth which has occurred in the area affected bythesource's emissions (sucharea tobe specified by-theAdministrator) since the effectivedateofthis paragraph.

(4) (i) Where anew or modified source is located onFederal lands, such source shall be subject to the procedures set forth inparagraphs (d) and (e) of this section. Such'procedures shall be in additiontoapplicableprocedures conducted bytheFederalLandManagerforadministration and protection of the affected Federal Lands. Where feasible, the Administrator will coordinate his review and hearings with the Federal Lanq Manager to avoid duplicate administrativeprocedures. (i) New or modified sources which

are located onIndian Reservations shall be subject to procedures set forth In paragraphs (d) ana (e) of this section. Such procedures shall be administered by the Administrator lir cooperation with the Secretary of the Interior with respect to lands over which the State hasnot assumedJurisdiction under other laws. (iII) Whenever any new or modified

source Is subject to action by a Federal
agency which mightnecessitate preparation of an environmental Impact statement pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321), review by the Administrator conducted pursuant to this paragraph shall be co- ordinated with the broad environmental reviews under that Act, tothe maximum feasible and reasonable. (5) Where an owner or operator has applied for permission to construct or modify pursuant to this paragraph and the proposed source would be located in an area which has been proposed for redeslgnatlon to a more stringent class (or the State, Indian Governing Body,

or FederalLandManager hasannounced such consideration), approval shall not be granted until the Administrator has acted on the proposed redesignation. (e) Proceduresfor public partioipation. (1) Si) Within 20 days afterreceipt of an application to construct, or any addition tosuch application, the Administrator shall advise the owner or operator of any deficiency in the Information submitted in support of the application. In the event of such a deficiency, the date of receipt ofthe application for the
purpose ofparagraph (e) (1) (11)of this sdction shall be the date on which all required information is received by the Administrator. (ii) Within 30 days after receipt of

a complete application, the Administratorshall;

(a) Make apreliminary determination whether the source should be approved, approvedwithconditions, or disapproved.

(b) Make available In at least one location in each region in which the proposedsourcewouldbeconstructed, a copy of all materials submitted by the owner

or operator, a copyoftheAdministrator's preliminary determination and a copy

or summary of other materials, If any, considered by the Administrator In making his preliminary determination; and (c) Notify the public, by prominent advertisement in newspaper of general circulation in each region in which the proposed source would be constructed, of the opportunity for written public
comment on the Information submitted by the owner or operator and the Administrator's preliminary determination

on the approvability of the source. (iii) A copyof thenotice requiredpursuant to this subparagraph shall besent
tothe applicantandtoofficials andagencies having cognizance overthelocations where the source will be situated as follows: State and local air pollution con- trol agencies, the chief executive of the city and county; any comprehensive re- gional landuse planningagency; andany State, Federal Land Manager or Indian Governing Bodywhose lands willbe significantly affected by the source's emissions. (iv) Public comments submitted In writing within 30 days after the date

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 235-THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1974

### RULES AND REGULATIONS

such information is made available shall be considered by the Administrator in making his final decision on the application. No later than 10 days after the close of the public comment period, the applicantmay submit a written response toany comments submittedbythepublic. The Administrator shallconsider theapplicant's response in making his final decision. 'All comments shall be made available forpublic inspection in at least

one location in the region in which the source would belocated. (v) The Administrator shall takefinal action on an application within 30 days after the close of the public comment period. The Administrator shall notifk the applicant in writing of his approval, conditional approval, or denial of, the application, and shall set forth his reasons for conditional approval or denial. Such notification shallbemade available forpublic inspection in atleastone location in the region in which the source wouldbelocated. (vi) The Administrator may extend each of the time periods specified in paragraph (e) (1) (ii), (iv), or (v) of this section or such other period as agreed to by the applicant and the Administitor. (2) Any owner or operator who constructs, modifies, or operates a stationary source not in accordance with the application, as approved andconditioned by the Administrator, or an.y owner or operator of a stationary source subject

to this paragraph who-commences construction or modification after June 1, 1975, without applying for and receiving approval hereunder, shall be subject

to enforcement action under section 113
ofthe Act. (3) Approval to construct or modify 'shall become invalid if construction or expansion is not commenced within 18 months after receipt of suchapproval or if construction Is discontinued for a pe- riod of 18 months or more. The Administrator may extend such time period
upon a satisfactory showing that an ex- tension isjustified.

(4) Approval to construct or modify shall not relieve any owner or operator of the responsibility to comply with the control strategy and all local, State, and Federal regulations which are part of the applicable State Implementation Plan. (f) Delegation of autliority. (1) The Administrator shall have the authority
to delegate responsibility forimplement- ingthe procedures for conducting source review pursuant to paragraphs (d) and (e), in accordance with subparagraphs 

### (2), (3), and (4) of this paragraph.

(2) Where the Administrator delegates the responsibility for Implement- ingthe procedures for conducting source review pursuant to this section to any Agency, other than a regional offlce of the Environmental Protection Agency, thefollowing provisions shall apply:

(I) Where theagency designatedisnot

an air pollution control agency, such
agercy shall consult with the appropriate State or local air pollution control
agency prior to making any determination required by paragraph (d) of this section. Similarly,where thb agency designated does not have continuing re- sponsibilities for land useplanning,such Agency shall consult with the appropriate State and local land use planning -agency prior to making any determination required by paragraph (d) of this section. (l) A copy of the notice pursuant to paragraph (e) (1) (ii) (c)of this section shall be sent to the Administrator through the appropriate regional office. (3) In accordance with Executive 

### Order 11752,theAdministrator's authority forimplementing the procedures for conducting sourcereviewpursuanttothis sectionshallnotbedelegated, other than
to aregional office of theEnvironmental Protection Agency, for new or modified

sources which are owned or operated by the Federal government or for new or modified sources located on Federal lands; except that with respect to the latter category, where new or modified

sources are constructed or operated on Federal lands pursuant to leasing- or other Federal agreements, the Federal land Manager may at his discretion, to the extent permissible under applicable
statutes and regulations, 

### require the 

### lessee or permittee to be subject to a designated State or local agency's pro- cedures developed pursuant to paragraphs (d) and (e) ofthis section. (4) The Administrator's authority for Implementing the procedures for conducting source review pursuant to this section shall not be redelegated, other than to aregional office oftheEnvironmental .Protection Agency, for new or modified sourceswhicharelocatedonIndianreservations except wherethe State has assumed Jurisdiction oversuch land under other laws, inwhich casetheAdministratormaydelegatehisauthorityto the States in accordance with subparagraphs (2), (3). and (4) of this paragraph.

LFR Doc.7-28353 Filed 12-4-74;8:45 am]

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 235-THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1974 

### 42517